Unisex marriages

Shreya Nayak

Unisex marriages

History owes an apology to these people and their families. Homosexuality is part of human sexuality. They have the right of dignity and free of discrimination. Consensual sexual acts of adults are allowed for the LGBT community.

— Justice Indu Malhotra

Unisex marriage, sometimes known as same-sex marriage, is the practice of marrying two men or two women. Legal and social responses to these types of marriages range from jubilation to prosecution. Various groups saw the conduct differently, making it a societal issue in the early twenty-first century.

Religions and same sex relationships

At some point in their history, the majority of the world's religions have rejected same-sex marriage. It is for this reason that gay activities are wicked because they contravene natural law or divine will. Sacred texts forbid such practices and only recognize marriage between one man and one woman as acceptable.

Religions such as Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Buddhism spoke out on this subject in multiple ways by the early twenty-first century.


Orthodox Judaism was adamantly opposed to same-gender marriage. However, as the reforms progressed, reconstructionist and conservative traditions permitted it.


Homosexuality was always represented as natural and happy in the faith, and it was never deemed immoral or bad. They depicted statues in temples and had texts that mentioned the third gender and a figure (Shikhandi in Mahabharat) marrying someone of the same gender.


Most Christian denominations opposed it, but some churches in Canada, such as the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), supported it, while the Unitarian Universalist churches and the gay-oriented Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches fully supported it.


The three major Buddhist schools—Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana—emphasized the attainment of enlightenment as a central subject; as a result, most Buddhist literature saw all marriages as a choice between the two people involved.


Although Muslims abhor homosexuality, it is nevertheless a criminal for a Muslim to engage in such behavior. In their religion, these actions are widely condemned.

Several pre-existing Delhi Sultanate regulations were consolidated into the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri during the Mughal Empire in India, establishing a common set of sanctions for zina (unlawful intercourse). A slave could receive 50 lashes, a free infidel 100, or a Muslim could be stoned to death. However, there are only a few references to homosexuality in some paintings and poetry depicting such relationships among the nobility of the time.

International state of same sex marriage

Islamic theocracies in deeply conservative places like Africa and Asia severely punish same-sex relationships. They frequently regard this as a moral rather than a legal issue. Many mostly Muslim countries' legal systems apply Islamic law in a variety of situations. The punishments for these acts could include the death penalty.

In the case of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, he issued a fatwa, or legal decree, endorsing gender-reassignment surgery when done by those who wanted to "correct" their physiology and therefore become heterosexual in the eyes of the law and therefore avoid punishment.

In contrast, same-sex partnerships were accepted in northern Europe and countries with cultural ties to that region. Denmark was the first country to create registered partnerships, which are a less formal version of marriage for same-sex couples. Similar laws were soon enacted in Norway (1993), Sweden (1995), Iceland (1996), the Netherlands (1998), and elsewhere in Europe, including the United Kingdom (2005) and Ireland (2001), all of which used specific terminology (e.g., civil union, civil partnership, domestic partnership, registered partnership) to distinguish same-sex unions from heterosexual marriages (2011).

Outside of Europe, some jurisdictions recognized common-law same-sex marriage in the mid-1990s (the Israeli Supreme Court later ruled in 2006 that same-sex marriages performed abroad should be recognized), and same-sex civil unions were legalized in New Zealand (2005) and parts of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Mexico in the early 2000s. Uruguay became the first Latin American country to allow same-sex civil partnerships on a national level in 2007, and the law went into effect the following year.

State of unisex relationship in India

Homosexuality has been a topic of debate in India from ancient times to the present. There are Hindu writings and sculptures that depict the presence of homosexual characters and the manner in which they were handled in those times. Since the 18th century, Indians have been homophobic. Homosexuals were not deemed inferior in any manner on Indian land prior to the beginning of the dark century.

377 of the IPC ,During the colonial period,

Homosexuality in India was exacerbated by British administration. So bad that we can still see the consequences. Section 377 of the British Criminal Code criminalizes homosexuality as "unnatural offences," and states that "anyone voluntarily engages in carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal shall be punished with life imprisonment." Both gays and heterosexuals were subject to sodomy legislation. The homosexual community was sometimes referred to as a "criminal tribe" by the British.

After independence, Section 377 was enacted.

The Naz India Foundation, founded by Anjali Gopalan in 1994, was the first to challenge Section 377 in Indian courts in 2001. The High Court dismissed their petition and referred it to the Supreme Court for reconsideration. In 2008, the center requested extra time to formalize its decision after the home and health ministries took opposing positions. According to the Ministry of Health, the criminalization clause hindered AIDS programs from reaching this group. Section 377, according to the Home Ministry, aided in the prevention of sexual offences against minors and animals. HC requested that the center provide a position based on scientific evidence. Last but not least The Delhi High Court declared that section to be unconstitutional with regards to sex between consenting adults on 2 July 2009 in Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, however the Supreme Court of India overruled that judgement on 11 December 2013. In India, homosexuality is a taboo subject. However, in recent years, people's attitudes regarding homosexuality have altered slightly. Several organizations have expressed support for decriminalizing homosexuality in India, including the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, the National AIDS Control Organization, the Law Commission of India, the Union Health Ministry, the National Human Rights Commission of India, and the Planning Commission of India.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ordered the government to classify transgender people to be "third gender" and include them in the OBC quota.

LGBTQ activists submitted five petitions in the Supreme Court in 2016, alleging that section 377 violates their “rights to sexuality, sexual autonomy, choice of sexual partner, life, privacy, dignity, and equality, as well as the other fundamental rights granted under part –iii of the constitution.”

The Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental constitutional right in August 2017. “Sexual orientation is a crucial attribute of privacy,” it also says.

Even though the curative petition was still pending, the Supreme Court established a constitution bench on January 5, 2018, to consider the challenge against Section 377 in its entirety. This could be owing to the points made in the 9-judge ruling in the Right to Privacy case, which indicated at the logic and decision in Suresh Koushal being fundamentally flawed. From July 10th, 2018, a five-judge panel comprised of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice R.F. Nariman, and Justice Indu Malhotra heard the case.

The five-judge Bench partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code on September 6, 2018, decriminalizing same-sex relationships between consenting adults. Individuals who identify as LGBT are now legally permitted to engage in consensual intercourse. The Court maintained Section 377 provisions that make non-consensual actions or sexual acts on animals illegal.

Unisex marriage in India

India is now one of the 125 nations that have legalized homosexuality, with a population of around 2.5 million gay people. Even though homosexuality is legal in India, same-sex marriage is still a rarity. Marriage is done in India to maintain the hierarchy; love is not a very good reason to marry; in the event of a homosexual relationship, a biological successor cannot be expected, and so appears unethical in today's Indian society. There are, however, applications made by couples who have been denied their rights. They believe that there are no laws that make their marriage legal. They believe that there are no laws that make their marriage legal. Under several marriage acts, such as the hindu marriage act, the muslim marriage act, and the parsi marriage act, there are laws that only apply to biological men and women.

In a Delhi-based appeal, it was noted that section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 states that "a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus," implying that there would be no objection to same-sex marriage between two Hindus from the LGBTQ community. The petitioners argued that because the HMA does not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual couples, the Act should recognize the right of a same-sex couple to marry.

Two mental health experts, Kavita Arora, 47, and Ankita Khanna, 36, filed a case in the Delhi High Court, claiming that they had been living together as a pair for eight years, were in love with one other, but couldn't marry since they were both women.

The second petition was submitted by two men, Vaibhav Jain, an Indian citizen, and Parag Vijay Mehta, an Indian citizen living in the United States, who married in 2017. This year, an Indian consulate declined to register their marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act of 1969.

The pair, who had been dating since 2012 and were supported by their families and friends, also claimed that the non-recognition of their marriage stopped them from traveling to India as a married couple during the Covid-19 outbreak.

The Kerala High Court has received a plea to legalize Sonu and Nikesh Pushkaran's marriage. Sonu and Nikesh are two young men who exchanged garlands and wedding rings in secret at the Guruvayoor temple in July 2018, just before the Supreme Court verdict. “I can't call Sonu my husband in any document,” Nitesh explains. We are unable to register a combined bank account or obtain medical insurance. We are not entitled to any of the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples in this country.